From time to time someone dares say the truth. Take heed: this enlargement affair could turn sour. The soothing statements that follow each bilateral meeting between the Heads of EU countries and those of candidate countries do not change the situation in anyway. On the contrary, they add additional elements of confusion and difficulties. It s not serious that after each of these meetings, the participants multiply their phrases to this effect and the unrealistic timetables, while those who work on the dossiers truly understand the reality, and once in a while say so.
As President of the Council, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs Hubert Védrine had the honestly and political courage to speak clearly to the parliamentarians of each candidate country, gathered in Paris in conference with EU parliamentarians, explicitly stating that demagogy is one of the difficulties of enlargement and it requires "being more respectful of the people, thus to tell them the truth". He gave the example of the franchise by notably underlining that:
there is no delay in the negotiations other than "compared to the demagogic promises made here or there" (he could have cited his President Jacques Chirac among the authors of such promises);
"we cannot put aside the problems through friendship or for ease";
the EU will not set a date for accession, but it confirms the undertaking to be ready, on its side, at the start of 2003. The remainder exclusively depends upon the candidate countries themselves;
"it is not lawyers that the candidate countries needs, but reformers and negotiators. They will enter when all the problems have been solved".
Signs of disappointment and lassitude. On the other side, the signs of disappointment and lassitude start to become clear. The Polish President Alexandre Kwasniewski reaffirmed the aim of joining the EU in 2003 adding: "what concerns us, is the selfishness of the western countries. Our history is sadly filled with examples of this kind". The intellectuals, as well as the political figures that are intellectuals, such as Vaclav Havel, feel that the technical difficulties are derisory (or even: should be considered as such) in the face of the historical, political and cultural meaning of the unification of Europe.
Take into consideration the others reasons. Thus we face two approaches that are hard to reconcile, if each party does not duly take into consideration the others reasons, such as:
the EU must imperatively safeguard what it has built in half a century, and that cannot subsist (and progress) if the rules of functioning are not applied to all the Member States, present and future, and respected by all. The regulations of the single market, the environmental standards, the competition rules and so on, are the fruit of decades work and result from often complex and difficulty reached compromises. If the 80,000 pages (oh yes) of the Community acquis are not respected in a uniform manner, if the companies are not submitted to the same obligations and do not have the same rights, the great market is disrupted.
the countries of Central and Eastern Europe want to enter, on an equal footing, into the Union that represents the civilisation that is theirs and to which, over the centuries, they contributed so much. How could they admit that the reunification of Europe is delayed or compromised because a customs regulation or other, was not transposed into a countries legislation, or because an administration does not yet completely master the management of a common policy?
There does not exist two categories. The fundamental positions of the two parties are both legitimate. How conciliate them? Only one path seems to exist. That the candidate countries rapidly indicate in a clear manner what is politically and economically necessary for them to have inserted into the Community Europe, in accordance with their dignity and their role and while guaranteeing security, economic support, the free movement of goods, participation in Community programmes and an equal presence in the common institutions. Then that an agreement on these basis be rapidly concluded, the result either in the form of a Confederation (old idea of Jacques Delors, which would already be a reality, if a correct vision had prevailed over the demagogy), or another form to reach a common agreement. In the meantime, the candidate countries could assess the extent to which they are truly prepared to carry out devolution of sovereignty towards Brussels (in order to avoid the objections and no-comments that obscure the accessions of Denmark, Sweden, and even United Kingdom); and, at the same time, for those who feel it necessary to fulfil the conditions, one or other accession could be carried out.
What crime against the common Europe, if…We are aware that a solution of this kind would not be possible as long as the EU is not able to convince the candidate countries that the Confederation formula does not constitute a division of European countries into two categories and that it has all the elements desirable for full participation in the European building process. We can even wonder if it does not correspond to the aspirations of the most of the public opinion in some of the present Member States (is that not right Mr Bonde?), who would have happily chosen if they had existed. Before initially rejecting a development in this direction, all the parties should consider the incomprehension and frustrations that risk resulting from the present process and to the lassitude that starts to appear in public opinion, on both sides. Momentum weakens. What crime against Europe, if we allow the aim of the reunification of the Continent to progressively deteriorate, lack of political courage to admit that only some of the candidate countries are able, according to the present rules and criteria, to fulfil in a reasonable time frame the Copenhagen criteria. We must consider, before the situation worsens, to prepare the political and physiological conditions to raise the standard, whatever the difficulties and reticence.
Ferdinando Riccardi
Note: the main part of the speech by Hubert Védrine have been printed in our Bulletin dated 23/24 October, pages, 15/16. See also the stances taken by European industry and employers (UNICE), notably over the admissible transition periods, in our Bulletin of 25 October pages 15/16.
The ideas and considerations that precede are not the sudden result of the reading of these texts. The problem had been raised, in this same section, in our Bulletin dated 31 January/1 February 2000; ten months later, the considerations developed remain, in our opinion, mainly valid, and the conclusions where already more or less similar to those that the reader has just read. As for the guidelines to be explored, they are not, far from it, the exclusive result of a personal cogitation, see this section in our Bulletin dated 22/23 May, which cited the results of the ideas of Jacques Delors on the creation of a "permanent structure" immediately gathering the Fifteen and the candidate countries, so that the latter may feel "that they are truly a part of the EU family", that they are also part of the European Union. Jacques Delors then detailed his views, by underlining that "immediate and strong gestures are possible" towards candidate countries, by suggesting in particular that the European Conference (that regroups the Fifteen and the candidate countries, but which, today, is completely useless) become the "permanent structure" cited and gather as of now ten time per year. Also the former President of the European Commission has also called to "define with the candidate countries how far we can go, at thirty, in economic, monetary and social integration, in terms of accompanying policies and minimum social and environmental guarantees (see of Bulletin of 15 September, pages 14/15).
After which, the Council President has, in a speech already cited, emphasised that fact that by the end of the year the Permanent Conference will gather twice per year (of which the second at Heads of Government level) and that it could "start a common political thought process on the functioning of an enlarged Europe".
"The Euro is such a strong currency, that in two years, at the most, after it is truly in circulation it will be a world currency, with the Dollar, and will be the dominant currency of the Mediterranean, the Balkans and even elsewhere". Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission